On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 23:18 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> I understand perfectly that this is what you want to do. And I'm
> saying that the following code snippet should do exactly the same,
> without having to add a new syscall:
>
> char tmpbuf[64];
> sprintf(tmpbuf,
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I deliberately not used the MS_* flags, which is currently a messy mix
> > of things with totally different meanings.
> >
> > Does this solve all the issues?
>
> We should add a size parameter either in the
> On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:39 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > > And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
> > > > suggested.
> > >
> > > If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
> > > solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time.
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:39 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
> > > suggested.
> >
> > If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
> > solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
> >
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I deliberately not used the MS_* flags, which is currently a messy mix
> of things with totally different meanings.
>
> Does this solve all the issues?
We should add a size parameter either in the mount_params or as
> > And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
> > suggested.
>
> If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
> solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
> automounter issue is just going to force us to redo the syscall in a
> > Maybe instead of messing with masks, it's better to introduce a
> > get_flags() or a more general mount_stat() operation, and let
> > userspace deal with setting and clearing flags, just as we do for
> > stat/chmod?
> >
> > So we'd have
> >
> > mount_stat(path, stat);
> >
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 17:03 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> And I'm not against doing it with the "at*" variants, as Trond
> suggested.
If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
automounter issue is
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The "flags" argument could be the same as for regular mount, and
> > contain the mnt_flags - so the extra argument could maybe usefully be
> > a "mnt_flags_mask", to indicate which flags we actually care about
> >
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > For recursive bind mounts, only the root of the tree being bound
> > > inherits the per-mount flags from the mount() arguments; sub-mounts
> > > inherit their per-mount flags from the source tree as usual.
> >
>
[ cc: linux-fsdevel ]
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think this concept is reasonable, but I don't think MS_BIND_FLAGS
> > is a descriptive name for this flag.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think this concept is reasonable, but I don't think MS_BIND_FLAGS
> is a descriptive name for this flag. MS_EXPLICIT_FLAGS might be better
> but still isn't optimal.
>
MS_BIND_FLAGS_OVERRIDE ?
Paul
--
To
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For recursive bind mounts, only the root of the tree being bound
> > inherits the per-mount flags from the mount() arguments; sub-mounts
> > inherit their per-mount flags from the source tree as usual.
>
> This is
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 09:30 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> And this is where we usually conclude, that a new userspace mount API
> is long overdue. So for starters, how about a new syscall for bind
> mounts:
>
> int mount_bind(const char *src, const char *dst, unsigned flags,
>
Please always CC linux-fsdevel on VFS patches!
> From: Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
>
> MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
> from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
> mountpoint.
This
Please always CC linux-fsdevel on VFS patches!
From: Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
mountpoint.
This is
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 09:30 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
And this is where we usually conclude, that a new userspace mount API
is long overdue. So for starters, how about a new syscall for bind
mounts:
int mount_bind(const char *src, const char *dst, unsigned flags,
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For recursive bind mounts, only the root of the tree being bound
inherits the per-mount flags from the mount() arguments; sub-mounts
inherit their per-mount flags from the source tree as usual.
This is rather
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this concept is reasonable, but I don't think MS_BIND_FLAGS
is a descriptive name for this flag. MS_EXPLICIT_FLAGS might be better
but still isn't optimal.
MS_BIND_FLAGS_OVERRIDE ?
Paul
--
To
[ cc: linux-fsdevel ]
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think this concept is reasonable, but I don't think MS_BIND_FLAGS
is a descriptive name for this flag.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For recursive bind mounts, only the root of the tree being bound
inherits the per-mount flags from the mount() arguments; sub-mounts
inherit their per-mount flags from the source tree as usual.
This is
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The flags argument could be the same as for regular mount, and
contain the mnt_flags - so the extra argument could maybe usefully be
a mnt_flags_mask, to indicate which flags we actually care about
overriding.
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 17:03 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
And I'm not against doing it with the at* variants, as Trond
suggested.
If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
automounter issue is just
Maybe instead of messing with masks, it's better to introduce a
get_flags() or a more general mount_stat() operation, and let
userspace deal with setting and clearing flags, just as we do for
stat/chmod?
So we'd have
mount_stat(path, stat);
mount_bind(from, to, flags);
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I deliberately not used the MS_* flags, which is currently a messy mix
of things with totally different meanings.
Does this solve all the issues?
We should add a size parameter either in the mount_params or as a
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:39 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
And I'm not against doing it with the at* variants, as Trond
suggested.
If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
automounter
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 18:39 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
And I'm not against doing it with the at* variants, as Trond
suggested.
If you're going to change the syscall, then you should ensure that it
solves _all_ the problems that are known at this time. Ignoring the
On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 9:31 AM, Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I deliberately not used the MS_* flags, which is currently a messy mix
of things with totally different meanings.
Does this solve all the issues?
We should add a size parameter either in the mount_params or
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 23:18 +0100, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
I understand perfectly that this is what you want to do. And I'm
saying that the following code snippet should do exactly the same,
without having to add a new syscall:
char tmpbuf[64];
sprintf(tmpbuf, /proc/self/fd/%i,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:45:15PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
> From: Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
>
> MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
> from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
>
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:45:15PM -0800, Paul Menage wrote:
From: Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
mountpoint.
From: Paul Menage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
mountpoint.
This flag allows you to create a bind mount with the desired
From: Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Add a new mount() flag, MS_BIND_FLAGS.
MS_BIND_FLAGS indicates that a bind mount should take its per-mount flags
from the arguments passed to mount() rather than from the source
mountpoint.
This flag allows you to create a bind mount with the desired
33 matches
Mail list logo
